Deforestation is overwhelming any pathetic tree-planting scams in Australia.

Companies like Woodside and it's ilk conduct bogus tree plantings which start to die as soon as the photographers and reporters have left the PR event for bogus tree plantings.

Why does Australia need more agricultural land when it exports more food than it eats?

Who are the dirty rotten scoundrels profiting from the deforestation?


Quote:

From 2001 to 2021, Australia lost 8.73Mha of tree cover, equivalent to a 21% decrease in tree cover since 2000, and 2.40Gt of CO₂e emissions.

Link

So a net change of -1%. -917KhA out of 80.3Mha. ::)

"From 2002 to 2021, Australia lost 62ha of humid primary forest, making up < 0.1% of its total tree cover loss in the same time period. Total area of humid primary forest in Australia decreased by 0.49% in this time period."

A large part of the loss was 2007 and 2014.

lee wrote on Jun 13^th, 2023 at 7:39pm:

So a net change of -1%. -917KhA out of 80.3Mha. ::) "From 2002 to 2021, Australia lost 62ha of humid primary forest, making up < 0.1% of its total tree cover loss in the same time period. Total area of humid primary forest in Australia decreased by 0.49% in this time period." A large part of the loss was 2007 and 2014.

Lee: "blame it on the Bossanova"?

I remember I think in the 1990's the forest industry screeching that they only wanted to cut down 50% of the trees in a region of  the south coast and that people should be reasonable.

The thing that forgot to mention was that it was 50% of the last 10%.

Coming to a suburb near you.

https://blog.csiro.au/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/NUllarbor_sign_lores-1024x717.jpg

That is weird. I swear Australia's commitment to national parks conservation has meant that we have more tree coverage over Australia than we did in the year 1900. We might see tree clearing around urban areas. But forests should be expanding around the country.

UnSubRocky wrote on Jun 15^th, 2023 at 5:52pm:

That is weird. I swear Australia's commitment to national parks conservation has meant that we have more tree coverage over Australia than we did in the year 1900. We might see tree clearing around urban areas. But forests should be expanding around the country.

Absolute bullsh!t: "we have more tree coverage over Australia than we did in the year 1900".

You need to sue your educators for negligence.

We might (and almost certainly) have less tree coverage now, in the year 2023, in Australia, compared to the year 1788. But, we would have more tree coverage in Australia, in the year 2023, than we did in the year 1900. Less tree coverage around major and minor cities. More tree coverage in national parks and other nature reserves. Greening Australia has a lot to answer, if they are not doing what they say that they are doing in replanting trees around the country.

Only 50% of Australia's forests and bushlands remain
intact compared to pre-European arrival.

Australia has lost 27% of its rainforest, 19% of open
forest, 11% of woodland forest, and 28% of mallee
forest since 1750.

—Wilderness Society

Of course, since the year 1750, Australia has lost 50% of forest and bushland. But, since 1900, we have been gaining ground with tree coverage.

UnSubRocky wrote on Jun 15^th, 2023 at 8:09pm:

Of course, since the year 1750, Australia has lost 50% of forest and bushland. But, since 1900, we have been gaining ground with tree coverage.

Bullsh!t.

The amount of money the public is spending to avoid 125 million tons of carbon dioxide from going into the atmosphere is set to be canceled out with about two years of land clearing. The total sum of trees that have been planted so far in the 20 million tree program, which has taken several years, was wiped out in only six months of land clearing. If knowing that doesn’t put things into perspective, nothing will!

...an' den we pwant some maww twees.

What makes you think that the trees that are cut down in one area are not going to be replaced by trees in another area?

UnSubRocky wrote on Jun 16^th, 2023 at 10:49am:

...an' den we pwant some maww twees. What makes you think that the trees that are cut down in one area are not going to be replaced by trees in another area?

There are far more men cutting down trees than there are planting trees.

and

Human nature, greed. Cutting down a tree is an event that requires no future action. Planting a tree requires further nurturing of the tree, particularly in dry seasons.

Trees can regenerate on their own, too. Seeds fall of the tree and get blown over to a spot a little way away. Then it germinates into a sapling. This happens when there are no humans around. Forests expand in area over the decades. Humans also can help expand these forests by planting saplings in designated forested areas.

I happen to have had two or three trees removed from my residence over the last 2 decades. The tree out the front of the fence line was causing a traffic hazard. A tree inside the fenceline had basically been on the edge of dying. So, that tree had to go.

However, another 2 trees have been planted in the backyard. Whilst tree removal is common around urban areas, tree expansions have been happening all over the country.

UnSubRocky wrote on Jun 16^th, 2023 at 3:46pm:

... Whilst tree removal is common around urban areas, tree expansions have been happening all over the country.

Bullsh!t.